Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.34 seconds)
M.S.Bhavani vs M.S.Raghu Nandan on 5 March, 2020 cites

Mauleshwar Mani And Others vs Jagdish Prasad And Others on 23 January, 2002

“11. From the decisions referred to above, the legal principle that emerges, inter alia, are: (1) where under a will, a testator has bequeathed his absolute interest in the property in favour of his wife, any subsequent bequest which is repugnant to the first bequeath would be invalid; and (2) where a testator has given a restricted or limited right in his property to his widow, it is open to the testator to bequeath the property after the death of his wife in the same will.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 29 - V N Khare - Full Document

Madhuri Ghosh & Anr vs Debobroto Dutta & Anr on 9 November, 2016

12. In view of the aforesaid principles that once the testator has given an absolute right and interest in his entire property to a devisee it is not open to the testator to further bequeath the same property in favour of the second set of persons in the same will, a testator cannot create successive legatees in his will. The object behind is that once an absolute right is vested in the first devisee the testator cannot change the line of succession of the first devisee. Where a testator having conferred an absolute right on anyone, the subsequent bequest for the same property in favour of other persons would be repugnant to the first bequest in the will and has to be held invalid. In the present case the testator Jamuna Prasad under the will had bequest his entire estate, movable and immovable property including the land under self­ cultivation, house and groves etc. to his wife Smt Sona Devi and thereafter by subsequent bequest the testator gave the very same properties to nine sons of his 1 5 daughters, which was not permissible…” (emphasis supplied) Notably, these observations were reaffirmed by this Court in Madhuri Gosh (supra) as well.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Ramachandra Shenoy And Another vs Mrs. Hilda Brite And Others on 1 April, 1963

10.6 Given that we find that an absolute right was given to Nirmala Murthy over the property, in view of the aforesaid decisions, any subsequent bequest sought in favour of the children of the testator cannot be given effect. Further, the reliance of Respondent No. 1 on the decision in Ramachandra Shenoy (supra) is misplaced inasmuch as the Clause in the Will in that case stated thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 106 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Rameshwar Baksh Singh vs Balraj Kuar on 23 July, 1935

…6. It may, however, be pointed out that this rule of interpretation can be invoked only if different clauses cannot be reconciled. (See: Rameshwar Bakhsh Singh v. Balraj Kuar [AIR 1935 PC 187 : 1935 All LJ 1133] ).” (emphasis supplied) Here, there is no inconsistency in the clauses of the Will inasmuch as the house property was absolutely bequeathed to Nirmala Murthy and no inconsistent bequest has been made thereafter. As discussed supra, the part of the Will providing for the sale of the property during her lifetime and the distribution of the sale proceeds between the children cannot be treated as a bequest, as it was a mere desire expressed by the testator. 10.5 In any case, even if it is assumed that the latter clause went beyond a mere expression of desire and created a bequest in favour of the children of the testator (Appellant No. 1 and 1 4 Respondent No. 1), the first clause creating an absolute right in favour of Nirmala Murthy shall prevail over such clause.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 38 - Full Document
1